How do Homeschooling Parents Know their Children are Learning?
by Jan Hunt
The assumption that homeschooling parents somehow lack awareness of their children's progress, and therefore require formal evaluation of that progress, is related to the fact that homeschoolers function beyond the arena of the schools, and our philosophies and methods are not always well-understood.
How do homeschooling parents know their children are learning? The answer to this question is, to put it most simply, direct observation. I have only one child. If a teacher had only one child in her classroom, and was unable to describe the reading skills of that child, everyone would be dismayed -- how could a teacher have such close daily contact with one child and miss something so obvious? Yet many people unfamiliar with homeschooling imagine that parents with just this sort of close daily contact with their child require outside evaluation to determine that child's progress. This puzzles homeschooling parents, who cannot imagine missing anything so interesting as the nature of their child's learning.
No homeschooling parents have twenty-five children, and we are thus free to focus on the enhancement of learning without being continually distracted by the many time-consuming tasks unrelated to learning that are necessary in a classroom situation. This freedom from distraction is a major factor in the establishment of a lively, creative, and joyful learning environment.
Any parent of a preschool child could almost certainly tell us how many numbers her child can count to, and how many colors he knows -- not through testing, but simply through many hours of listening to his questions and statements and observing his behavior. In homeschooling, this type of observation simply continues on into higher ages and more complex learning.
There are many times in the course of a day when a reasonably curious child will want to know the meaning of certain printed words -- in books and newspapers, on the computer or television, on board game instruction cards, on package labels, on mail that has just arrived, and so on. If this child's self-esteem is intact, he will not hesitate to ask his parents the meanings of these words. Through the decrease of questions of this type, and the actual reading aloud of certain words, ("Look, Daddy, this package is for you!") it seems safe to assume that reading is progressing in the direction of literacy. This may seem to outsiders to be somewhat imprecise, but homeschooling parents learn through experience that more specific evaluation is intrusive, unnecessary, and self-defeating.
If the government were to establish compulsory evaluation of babies to determine whether they were walking on schedule, everyone would think that was absurd. We all know that healthy babies walk eventually, and that it would be futile and frustrating to attempt to speed up that process; it would be as foolish as trying to speed up the blooming of a rose. Gardeners do not worry about late-blooming roses, or measure their daily progress - they trust in nature's good intentions, meet the needs of the plants under their care, and know that any further intervention would interfere with the natural flow of their growth. Such trust is as essential in the education of a child as it is in gardening. All healthy rose bushes bloom when ready, all healthy babies walk when ready, and all healthy children in a family of readers read when ready - though this may be as late as ten or twelve. There is no need to speed up or measure this process.
The child's progress is not always smooth; there may be sudden shifts from one stage to the next. Thus, formal evaluation given just prior to such a shift may give unfair and misleading information. At a time when I knew (through a reduction in the number of requests for me to read certain signs, labels, etc.) that my son Jason's reading was improving, but not, as far as I knew, yet able to read fluently, I told him one evening that I was unable to read to him because I wasn't feeling well. He said, 'Well, you can rest and I'll read a book to you." He proceeded to read an entire book flawlessly, at a level of more difficulty than I would have guessed.
Thus it sometimes happens in the natural course of living with a child that we receive more direct and specific information about his progress. But it should be stressed that this is part of the natural process of "aiding and abetting" a child's learning, and that requiring such direct proof is almost always self-defeating. Had I required him to read the book, he might well have refused, because he would have felt the anxiety which anyone feels when being evaluated. But because he chose to read voluntarily, and his accuracy was not being examined, anxiety was not a factor.
Homeschooling parents, then, cannot avoid having a good general idea of a child's progress in reading, or in any other area. Without testing for specific learning, we may underestimate a child's abilities to some extent, but all that means is that we make delightful discoveries along the way.
If homeschooling parents do not measure, evaluate and control learning, how can the child himself know when to move on to the next level? If we were to ask a horticulturist how a rose knows when to bloom, he or she could not answer that question; it is taken on faith that such knowledge is built into the miraculous design of the seed. A child's schedule of intellectual growth, like the rose's blooming, may indeed be a mysterious process, but it nonetheless exists, built into each child at conception. There is no need to impose such a process from the outside, and no one but the child has direct access to this process. Thus any imposition of an artificial structure must necessarily be less successful than simply leaving these determinations to the child. That is, any attempt to make these determinations from the outside represent mere guesswork that is unlikely to match up with the actual unfolding of interests and abilities within the child.
Jason, though somewhat "late" in walking (17 months) and fluent reading (7 years), one day at age three taught himself squares and square roots. How could I have guessed that he was ready for that level of mathematics on that particular day? Had I been imposing a standard curriculum, I might have discouraged early mathematics and emphasized reading, and to what end? He is now proficient in, and greatly enjoys, both areas. Ultimately, it made no difference that he achieved this mastery along unevenly timed routes. As John Holt observed, children are not trains. If a train does not reach every station on time, it will be late reaching its ultimate destination. But a child can be late at every "station", and can even change the entire route of the learning process, and still reach mastery of all areas of learning in good time.
The homeschooling child not only knows what he needs to learn, but how best to go about learning it. Jason has always devised ingenious ways for learning what is currently in the foreground of his interest. His method for learning squares and square roots - rows and columns of dots on paper - would never have occurred to me, even if I had guessed correctly that he was ready for this subject at that early age. At about age 6, he was looking over a new globe, and made a game of guessing which of several pairs of countries was larger in area, then larger in population, and so on. These sorts of games went on constantly; his creativity in designing interesting learning methods far surpassed my own, and I never had to give a single thought to motivation. My child is not unique; many homeschooling parents have reported just this sort of creativity and joyful learning in their children.
Jason has had no lessons in the conventional sense. He has taught himself, with help as needed and requested by him, reading, writing, math, and science. However, these subjects are not treated as separate categories, but as parts of the topic of current interest. My role has not been that of "teacher", but of facilitator. I am not merely a passive observer, however. When he asked a question - which he did many times each day, I answered it as well as I could. If I couldn't, I became a researcher: I made phone calls, helped him to use the encyclopedia, accompanied him to the library, or found someone with relevant experience with whom he could learn; whatever helped him to find the answer. This was not merely helpful in answering his specific questions, but in the more general sense of modeling the many ways in which information can be obtained. That is, regardless of which specific topics were covered, our larger curriculum has always been "how to learn" and "how to obtain information."
In an age of "information explosion," it is no longer meaningful or realistic to require rote memorization of specific facts. Not only are these facts meaningless to the child unless they happen to coincide with his own current and unique interests, such facts are simply too numerous, and many will in any case be outdated by the time he is an adult. But if a child learns how to obtain information, he can apply that skill throughout his life.
While we do not consider ourselves homeschooling for religious reasons, we have always welcomed the time available to explore questions of personal ethics, and to encourage such qualities as kindness, honesty, trust, cooperation, creative solutions to problems, and compassion for others. This is a significant part of our "curriculum". We have also appreciated having time in the morning to discuss dreams from the previous night and plans for the day ahead, when I would otherwise have been preoccupied with helping him to get ready for school. Believing that modern life is already overly hectic, we try as far as possible to make room for unhurried time in our family.
What I have described above is sometimes called "unschooling", in which the child's current interests determine the curriculum, and the parents act not as teachers but as tutors and resource assistants. This method, one of several homeschooling approaches, is often misunderstood, because it is based on assumptions that are quite different from those implicit in conventional schooling.
Unschoolers are more often described by what we do not do; we do not "teach"; we do not impose an arbitrary, artificial curriculum; we do not structure the hours of our "school day". Let me describe what it is we do:
-
Answer questions. Many of us believe that this is the most essential and critical aspect of a successful homeschooling program.
-
Encourage creative and cooperative solutions to problems as they arise.
-
Seek out resources and information to support whatever current interests the child is exploring.
-
Attempt to illustrate, through the daily decisions we make, the benefits of such personal moral qualities as friendship, honesty, and responsibility.
-
Model the joys of learning through our own discussions, reading, and research.
While it is not impossible for a conventionally schooling family to pursue the kinds of activities I have described, it is simply more difficult to do so when parents and children have so much less time together, and when even after-school hours are influenced by projects, homework, and other school-related demands. In additon, school children become used to seeking emotional support from peers, and this pattern is difficult to interrupt even when school is not in session.
Rather than being threatened by homeschoolers and unschoolers, who will always be a small minority, educators would do well to see us as colleagues and sources of information on the nature of learning and motivation. After all, we spend nearly all of our waking hours observing, studying, and participating in this fascinating endeavor. Unlike school teachers, we also have the luxury of continuity: we observe learning unfold over many years of spending time with the same child. This helps us to understand the nature of individual intellectual development over the long term.
Homeschoolers, unschoolers, and public school educators share the same goals. That we take divergent paths to these goals should be seen not as an obstacle but as an opportunity to explore - in a cooperative spirit - the unique discoveries each path offers.
*****************************
Objection - You're not qualified to teach. Teachers are taught how to teach in college, what makes you think you'll know how to teach? Why don't you leave the education of your child to the professionals?
Answer - Who taught your child to walk? Who taught your child to talk? To feed herself? To share? If you taught your child to do these things then you can obviously teach. Granted, some subjects will be harder to teach because you don't know them as well as you do eating, walking, talking, etc. But you have shown that you ARE qualified to teach.
Additionally, there are MANY resources available to home schoolers to help them do the job well. There are conferences, workshops, periodical, support groups, local and national organizations, websites and mail lists to help those who have made this commitment.
If you are a Christian then you have another factor to consider. Proverbs 22:6 says 'Train up a child in the way he should go.' I've been told according to the intent of the Hebrew it's meaning is more accurately interpreted 'Train up a child according to his bent.' To raise a child according to his bent it could only be done in a full-time tutorial environment, in other words...home.
In many endeavors, motivation is at least as important as ability. Parents have a great stake in their children's educations and therefore are going to put in a great deal of effort. Let's look at results. Statistically, home educated children are better educated than their government school counterparts. We must be doing something right. We are constantly hearing about the poor quality of education in the government schools. That does not speak well for the professionals or the training they receive.
Objection - Taking all of the home school kids out has damaged the government schools.
Answer - Removing children from the government schools will reduce class sizes. We are regularly told that reducing class sizes increases the effectiveness of instruction. The teacher is able to give more time to each student and therefore improve that child's education. Also, deterioration of the quality of education in government schools is a large part of the reason that home schooling is getting so popular.
Objection - Home schooling children damages the government schools by taking away needed funds.
Answer - Fewer students attending requires less funding since fewer textbooks, etc. need to be purchased. Also, my primary responsibility is MY child's education. If I believe that home schooling is the best option for my child then that is what I need to do.
Secondly, legalized abortion has taken more children out of the government school system than home schooling has. Perhaps those who are concerned about the funding "problem" for government schools should go after those who have aborted their children rather than those who are trying to give their children a better education.
Thirdly, the number of homeschooled children is small compared to the number in private schools. Society has never complained about this "drain" on government school funds. So why pick on home schoolers? Why do educational elitists not complain about this? The reason is simple. The educational elitists are the very ones who have their children in private schools.
Lastly, this argument is essentially irrelevant. Many schools that have very limited funds turn out very successful students. Increased funding does NOT translate into increased results.
Objection - What happens if your child wants to go to college?
Answer - Home schooled children have been accepted in colleges all over the country. They have been very successful in college. Home schooled children have graduated from Harvard. Home schooled children have been National Merit Scholars. Some colleges are beginning to go out of their way to recruit home schooled children because they are finding them better prepared and more conscientious.
Objection - Your child's education will be inferior.
Answer - This is simply false. The opposite is true. One on one tutoring is easily the most effective form of teaching. No matter how capable a government school teacher is, she can not give the kind of education to each student that one on one tutoring gives.
Test results consistently show that homeschoolers test at a much higher level than the government school children. Additionally, home education allows a child to receive an education that is uniquely tailored to his skills, interests and needs. Most colleges have at least some remedial courses. The purpose of remedial courses is to help students learn things they should already know. Some colleges have as much as 60 - 70% of their students in need of remediation. That doesn't sound like the government schools are doing a great job.
Objection - Elementary school may be OK but you're not qualified to teach all of the high school material.
Answer - There are many outstanding curricula available for teaching every course imaginable. They come with teacher's manuals and other materials that help the parent teach anything from Spanish to Calculus to Physics. Even if the parent is not well versed in a particular field of study, they can work with the child and learn together. Two people working together can learn incredible amounts of material.
In areas where the parent feels inadequate they can always use the expertise of a private tutor, a relative or a neighbor to help.
Also, for the Christian, we need to remember that God promises to supply all our needs and He is even more intimately concerned about the education and training of our children. As we seek Him, He truly guides according to the child's needs, which may not necessarily be what this distorted world deems important.
Objection - It must be difficult to teach more than one level at the same time.
Answer - Not all subjects have a particular sequence of study that is necessary. Mathematics, reading and writing have a fairly fixed order in which they need to be done. But history, science, social studies, etc. can be done in any order. Children of any age can study Ancient Egypt. Children of any age can do studies on magnetism. This is along the lines of what was done in the days of the one room school house. It worked well.
When something is being done sequentially, it still can be used for children of various levels. When one child is being taught about something, it can be a review for older children and an introduction for younger children. When the ages are further apart, older children can help teach younger children.
Yes, it may be more of a challenge to teach different levels, but simply being a challenge does not make it wrong or impossible.
Objection - Who will recognize their diploma? Homeschooled kids won't have a real and acceptable high school diploma.
Answer - As stated above, many colleges are eager for home schooled children. In any case, it would not be difficult for the home schooled child to take the GED to get a "recognized" high school diploma, if that is necessary.
Objection - What about PE (phys ed.), Driver's education?
Answer - At most government schools, PE is nothing more than playing games for a little while as seldom as once a week. Most children get at least as much exercise outside of school as they would from a government school PE course.
Regarding driver's education, parents all over the country have taught their children how to drive without any help from government schools. Also, there are curricula available that help parents in teaching driving.
Objection - What about them not having enough competition from other kids challenging them to do their best?
Answer - In the average government school, children are not challenged to do their best. Teachers have to spend time trying to teach the slower students so the brighter ones are left unchallenged.
Objection - How will you know you are teaching the right things and at the right times?
Answer - By personal observation of your child you can notice when they are ready and able to learn something. Just like we choose toys by our children's abilities and interests, we can tell when they are ready to learn. In a classroom of 20 or more in a government school, such observation and individual adapting of curricula is impossible.
Also, there are scope and sequence charts dealing with these things that are available with the text books. But each child is an individual and that is the beauty of home school. You can teach and encourage when the child is ready, not push them when they are behind or keep them back when they are ready to go ahead.
Lastly, there is no uniformity among government schools as to what is taught when, particularly in grades K through 8. Not only do scope and sequence vary from state to state and school district to school district, but even two fourth grade classes in the same school may study completely different things in science, history, reading, etc. So homeschoolers can be confident that they are not missing anything that "all" or even "most" government schooled children are getting at any particular time.
Objection - How will you teach your kids the lab sciences? Homeschooled high schoolers can't have a good science course because you can't have a full lab in your home.
Answer - There are many science experiments which can be done in the home with easily obtainable things to show all sorts of scientific facts. Science with known and familiar items is more likely to have a strong impact on the child and more likely to be remembered and understood.
Objection - You can't possibly give the quality of education that is received by children in the government schools.
Answer - First, I question whether the government schools are giving a good quality education. We are constantly hearing that our government education system is failing. If that is the case, then certainly home education looks like a good option. Even if that is not the case, the government school education is not as good as it may appear. An education involves learning how to learn. In most cases, the government school does not provide that.
Most education there involves learning facts. While there is nothing wrong with learning fact, there needs to be more and the government school system doesn't accomplish that. The old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink."
Sitting in a government school classroom for 13 years does not guarantee an educated student. Home education, with its capability of being personally tailored to the needs and interests of the child, is more likely to produce a child who retains a love of learning. That child will know facts. But she will also know how to find out facts she doesn't know.
